I had naively assumed that the referendum was a slam dunk - who's NOT for better child protection, eh?
It seems the good people of Jobstown are, and many other similarly deprived areas. The question is why?
My cynical intuitive assumption was that it proves the theory that kids are big sources of incomes and allowances in these areas and that one unheralded feature of a YES vote is more state power to remove kids from unsuitable parents - this depriving them of benefits and allowances, but maybe I'm being unfair.
Does any have any thoughts on why many deprived areas are voting NO?